Battelle Memorial Institute rronnwest

7 OSCE + REMAND. AGMNGTOM SEIS? = TELEIWOWNE AREA CODESOR. MSHTT TABORATORY

a>)

Dear f

Records of external and internal exposure, Indding’ records of exposure that

you may hove received olsewhere, have been mointained throughout your

Hanford employment. The radiation exposure you hgve received ot Honford ts

aioe sere aie sel dosimetry programs.

the exposure +

tough MAREN 2Be Aves °*? Rooke feds

penetrating dose you wat eee ceault of work ot Honford tas ake -

sems, including ____¢9 __roenigens, Your ocommisloted occupational whole
body exposure ts 0s follows:

‘With the exception of tritlom, which is Included cbove, the whole body counter
exominotion program, supplemented. by bioassoy dato, Indicatés- you received
ne deposition of radiocdive materials which exceeded five
applicable limit.

This fetter was prepared os the offal transcript GF your occupational ‘expo “
sure status..ct.the. time. us lermloation from, Genaccl. Company.

Manager > - : so:
PROTECTION DEPARTMENT



RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE Page I

Individual Dosimeter History 95/07/02
SSN: __ Rex Id:
Pay

ce Id NCO Begin Dt End Dt = OC__—s Shall Deep Neut Ring Eye Per End Dt

«K 01/01/1959 12/32/1959 30 90 0 0 0 12/31/1959
xx 01/01/1958 12/31/1958 890 890 oO Oo ® 12/31/1958
xx 01/01/1957 12/31/1957 1190 1190 oO Oo 0 12/31/1957
xx 01/01/1956 12/31/1956 600 600 Q 0 O 12/31/1956
x 01/01/1955 12/31/1955 0 0 0 3920 0 12/31/1955
xXx 01/01/1955 12/31/1955 520 520 0 0 © 12/31/1955

XX 01/01/1954 12/31/1954 o oO oO 5150 O 12/31/1954

xX 01/01/1954 12/31/1954 60 60 0 ° 0 12/31/1956

xx 01/01/1953 12/31/1953 Oo 0 0 3230 © 12/31/1953
xx 01/01/1953 12/31/1953 1280 870 o i) @ 12/31/1953
KX 01/01/1952 12/31/1952 o oO Qo 820 QO 12/31/1952

91/01/1952 12/31/1952 560 490 0 0 @ 12/31/1952

xx 01/01/1951 12/31/1951 Go oO oO 570 QO 12/31/1951
XX 01/01/1951 12/31/1951 1120 970 430 0 O 12/31/1951

xx O1/01/1950 12/31/1950 6 0 0 1450 0 12/32/1980

xx 02/01/1950 12/32/1950 3680 550 260 0 0 12/32/1950

Xxx 01/01/1949 12/31/1949 oO o e 40 QO 12/31/1949
xx 01/01/1949 12/31/1949 320 70 0 0 0 12/34/1949

XK 01/01/1948 12/31/1948 190 80 0 oO QO 12/31/1948
xX 01/01/1947 12/31/1947 100 30 ° O@ 12/31/1947

KX 01/01/1946 12/31/1946 270 100 0 QO 12/31/1946

XR 01/01/1945 + 12/34/3945 8 ° 0 120 0 42/31/1945
XX 01/01/1945 12/31/1945 74301470 t) t) 0 12/33/1945

O1/o1si944 12/31/1944 0 0 ° 0 o 42/31/1946

@ Pap

&y
xy
~*~


|
|

Lo Cont Utortin al tt itkttrad Crt Agee Ko

SEE Ctewthe athipe sooty» W
£ Ls Aorttint te anne Zo _warent

ia cLewbre ebatce lt ae
haw O2y Clore



i
i
i

BATTELLE I$] NORTHWEST

ANTES MOLORAL ERTUTE  HORTIVEST LASORATONONS
PG 20% 992. momeAND. WASHINGTON 99252/ TEEPONE 509-362-304

sF2s
Dear |
Records of externo! and Internal exposure, including records of exposure thot you may have recelved
ebewhere, have been moiniained throughout your Hooford employment. The radiction exposure

you have racelved ot Honford is determined from meosurements sade by the personnel dosimeiry

progroms. These measurements indicate for pectod
DECEHBER 23 3970 through JUNE 27¢ 1971, the whole body penstrating

dose you cecoived os @ result of work ot Hanford wos. 30 _rems, including. 29 roent-
gens. ‘Your accumuloted occupational whole body exposure is a3 follows:

The dose from any Intoke of tritium Is included above. The whole body counter examination program,
supplemented by bioassay dato, indicates you received no other deposition of radiocdive moteriols
which exceaded five percent of the opplicoble limit. - . eee te

of the time

This letter was preporsd os the official transcript of your occupational exposure status
ond tronsfer to

‘of your termination from TTerss
BRHCO » A duplicate copy of this letter will be ploced
ARKGO exposure file. It fs especially fm-

in your
sonaeh Dosimetry Services Section if thers cppear fo be

portant, therefore, that you contact the Per:
any discreponcles. .

On the reverse side of this letter you will find o brief -explonotion.of she gurrant.nctiongily recom
monded Itmits and o almple method for comporing your occupations} exposure with these lmis. You
should contact your supervhor if you hove ony questions regording the information reported in this
letter, other Information ebout your zadictlon exposure at or the contro! system used fo

mointain exposures within established permissible fimtts.

hie

“KR Held

Monoger eee
Personnel Dosimel - ae
RADIATION PROTECTION DEPARTMENT



RRR REE RRR RRR

Total Hanford

Total 22355 24110 30070

to

Intertrac?
outstanding Dosimeter:
zi

*Internal Dose is CEDE
Only Hanford Occupational Doses are included on this Report



Sth eas
Les Aci! aa -

a ~ ects ple fa gatea\ _
. _ how o Se z Ze. Sco-z
— ease fon Gpattiig ) feng oe Ts

ZS canh egy dais Fa thetaal?
a V4

. re yok. Zi Sha bet or
: pip a duct
wes (eg r aa “END: -

Lo

= Bz ns Lie nisi SL <eer@r' Ape

_- _& thar — a _ Dye eae 2, a SST
. _ & Le. PLANE... E each ch IO lasted «fan
ae Yrenths 2 Spl

J edhe sey

- — Xa
aN
__ a soe ee mee — yh AaAN) 48 al



AFFIDAVIT OF *
State of Washington

Coumty of Benton ss.

ee

qT, . . and
of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, deposes and states that to
the best of my knowledge, that these are mv recollection of events as
related to me many times by my mother, 1. _

She would relate stories of her working at Hanford. She started
in the cafeteria and progressed to a working as a laboratory
technician. She told me of how the Richland area was So desolate and
of the sand storms she endured. She related stories of living in a
women's dormitory, even though she was married at the time.

She also told me of her terror when she had a radiation .
exposure. To my best recollection of her exposure, she told me
the following:

1. She said she was working in a *not" lab with her arms
inserted through long gloves that protruded into a
transparent "box".

2. At the end of the day, she walked through @ hallway
monitoring system and the radiation alarm sounded.

3. Imiediately, supervisors stopped ber and rushed her to
showers in the hallway. __. .

4. Rfter rinsing her off fully clothed, she was put into a
private shower area where she disrobed and an assistant
scrubbed her until she felt raw and sore all over.

5. She was driven home by her supervisor, because by then she
had missed her bus ride home.

6. She said she was terrified - she didn’t quite know what to

- -expect regarding heaith risks, especially since she was
pregnant.

Shortly thereafter, because of her pregnancy, she was transferred.

DATED THIS Ais or L dec,» 2003. :

County of Benton

44

PUBLIC in and for
State of Washington.

State of Maen onan 12 IEA HOPE


May 30, 2006

We authorize to release copies of my mother’s EEOICP case to N
only the special exposure cohort petition.

$d


ocuments

+ Handwritten Diary

Note: The following is a typewritten version of each page of the diary written by
8 dictated by her husband. Each page is initialed bx _--- and
with word “true” is written under his initials. The original pages are kept by daughter,

Diary pane 1 of 28
Copy of ..... sath certificate

Diary page 2 of 28
Employment history
Worked 1943 to 1944
Worked as a carpenter on construction for E. |. DuPont.
Hired to production 1944 (in) 300 Area as a Production Lathe Operator.
Immediate supervisor I
Machining Uranium slugs ‘for the 100 Area reactors
Incident — A hot turning burn on his neck (front of neck)
Dec 1944, 1945 to 1946

Diary page 3 of 28

1946 to 1947 — 224 East :

Radiation time limit was set up by asin
1947 in C cell 224 Bldg. floor contaminations cleaning.

i had 18 minutes over exposure the first incident and was kept out of the cell for 6
weeks.

The second incident | was left in the cell 27 minutes — due to a mistake in the time

limit by these two men.

This was during a solution transfer from 221 to 224 Bldg. and very high radiation
reading.

1948 — 224 West

No incidents during this year of operation

1949, 231 Bldg.

No incidents other than contamination clean u on fingers which was normal
periodically.

1950 to 1959, 234-5
Incident — continue to Diary page 4 of 28

Diary page 4 of 28

This building was considered a building to stay clear off by Supervisors and Operators
being transferred from other araae

4,6A Page 1 of 4


Pophymat ey

wh ted SFR S96
a
paaee —_

whiged ex. 6 HotheeLee Ahew SPS SE

LE on aa aah. Genz

BE ut fea ble ~
Sreent - a hap Loren. pean on,

pe! Me


ruiy, 33.2006 14:@20m

May 30, 2006

We authorize to
only the special

MR ke tk Bt

release copies of my mother's EEOICP case to ;

fv Zo U0 4b-O4 FUL
NO. 148

Plt

42


5
t

Distribution
August 27, 1997
Page 2

working lifetime at Hanford. Importantly, there is no truly satisfactory method to
determine the neutron dose. The use of NTA film, which represented state-of-the-art capabilities in the

(71.2 MeV) of the neutrons front PuF, combined with further energy degradation of these neutrons:
from shielding in the work environment. Until the availability of thermoluminescent neutron dosimetry
techniques during the middle to late 1960s and early 1970s, NTA film represented the anly generally
available neutron dosimeter. It was used throughout DOE, and other ageacy, facilities beginning in
‘abobt 1950. As determined dating the IARC doshneny subcommitices, NTA was generally used
throughout the world to measure neutron dose in plutonium work environments. It is widely
recognized that unrecorded neutron dose occurred and identification of these warkers (to exclade them

from dose-effect analyses) was incladed in the IARC epidemiologic evaluations (Cardis 1995). fe

‘Once PNNL-11196 was prepared, an effort was conducted to identify workers with significant potential
for unrecorded neutron dose at the Hanford Pintonium Finishing Plant (PFP). Foreach worker = -
identified, a copy of this letter is to be placed in their individual exposure history file. As such, the
dose data for any worker with a copy of this letter in their exposure history file should be used only
with a full understanding of the uncertainty in the numerical value of the recorded dose. Information in
PNNL-11196, along with the worker’s employment and dose history, can be used to determine the
approximate magnitude of the unrecorded neutron dose,

Distribution: Individual Exposure History File
(c/o VL Berndt, PNNL)

Ms. Theresa L.. Aldridge
DOEMRL, Health Physicist

Mr. Robert Southworth
DOE/RL, Office of Chief Councit

3.3


‘ Radiological Exposure System Page 1

Internal Dosimetry Report 05/26/2006 14:31
Sex: Parameter Dates: 10/01/1900 10/01/2099
Emergency Search For: |
Address
INTERTRAC MASTER RECORD
Eval Open POR A Begin End int ADR Principal 50 YrCom
1D Date FFE c Date Date Mde RRS Radionuclides DOS Equiv
Eval INTERTRAC DEPOSITION RECORDS
ID Depo Nuclid Activity (NCI) T-Rate (1/days)
INCIDENT/SKIN CONTAMINATION
Incident
Num Type Date Buitding Area Dose Received
BIOASSAY RESULTS
KK Eval NS P ... -_ an)
c ID CD C Result Error Limit UN F
PU 03/27/1958 U 0000 8
PU 06/07/1957 U o000 8
Pu 04/13/1956 uU 0000 «8
PU O44angss =U 0000 8
PU 03/15/1954 u o000 «8
PU TOF2E1953 u 0000 8
VY Ppu 10/04/1951 U 0000 «8
Su O8/16/1951 uU 0000 «8
« PU 06/29/1950 uU 0000 8
+ PU 06/24/1949 u 0000 8
1. PU 03/23/1948 U ooco 8
AINVIVO DISPLAY
Exam BD Count DT 4H Eval
Date cD Isotp Quantity Error LC/MDA Length = RG cD OF 1D
03/01/1962 WBD CS137 4.8E+00 PR Al
09/01/1962 WBD K 40 1.29E+02 PR Al
Os0TN962 WED NA24- PR AV
03/01/1962 WBD ZN65 1&+00 PR Al

This report summarizes all bioassay data available in the REX electronic database. It is possible that additional bioassay data
exist in microfilm records that have not been incorporated into REX, although it normally can be assumed that omitted records
are inconsequential to dose calculations.

ae


ph
A hreerel beceral Lyrics Lecting SPS
nd (9S wef ee bone
Gt Aght € tad A fermentor Ke
cas cw & bar ool and SI toonlé
tee) porre pn the Mey Ae LABEL Awe
oS abeo he herr ery Clear



2.3.6 Missing Internal Dosemetry Records

. should ail have
extensive internal dosemetry records. They have not been provided through
FOIA requests. We believe these records have been lost, destroyed or
falsified.

2.3.7 ..-. Lost Records

2.3.7.1 _.. fecord of investigation of personnel radiation monitor
results dated May 23, 1962 documents the neutron film dosimeter
and finger ring dosimeter, “Lost reading because dosimeters were
left in 234-5 bidg. during criticality incident” (See 3.7)

2.3.7.2 record dated July 11, 2006 (See 3.8)
“Whole body dose for 1954 could not be verified due to the poor
quality of prints.” The FOIA request had 117 copies stamped
“pest available copy” and there were an additional 32 copies that
were not readable.

2.3.7.3 .ecords dated August 26, 1963 (See 3.9)
records dated August 26, 1963 Plutonium Urinary
Excretion Data lists seven exposure incidents, the PNNL letter (See
3.9) dated July 11, 2006 lists three intake incidents, a memorandum
was found for one additional intake incident dated Feb. 18, 1961.
(See 3.10) This ilustrates PNNL data from REX is inaccurate. See
REX-01 DOO page 4, “This report summarizes all bioassay data
.available in the REX electronic database. . It is. possible that
additional bioassay data exist in microfilm records that have not
been incorporated into REX, although it normally can be assumed
that omitted records are inconsequential to dose calculations. (See
3.6) The above records show positively that REX records are not
complete and no assumptions should be made.

2.3.7.4 1. 2 Record For Intake Incident Dated May 23, 1963
The record for an intake incident that occurred May 23,
1963, titled Record for Employee Exposure Record Folder states
“Evaluations, documents and information regarding plutonium
deposition cases are maintained in a record file designated as
Plutonium Deposition Cases. _ ced in the same
building, there are no such records for Haugen.

SEC 00057 Response to Leiter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 5 of 9


|
|
|

Release of ' 's diary and records

We, eee eee ey eee ee cee eee.) ase
to | . _ copies of our father’s diary of radiation
incidents at Hanford and copies of his work and related records (a total of 28 pages plus
attachment of Employment History and Radiation incidents and Effects 1942 to 1959) for
submission with the Special Exposure Cohort Petition being filed for all classes of

workers at Hanford for the years of 1942 to 1961.

- 4

; Galas
ne /3e—

4IC


“es .

AEB


i
i
i

__ the well shafts.

quit or got laid off the family had five days fo move out. | bought my house for $7000 in
1952. We lived in- _ WA for the fist years, later moved to Richland.

1 worked in the tank farm from about 1965, retired in 1987. The tank farms were in 200 East
and 200 West. At that time there were about 30 tanks total | think. C Farm in 200 East had
6 tanks buried underground.

Mostly what we did was to go out with crews, change routes for moving liquid from one tank
to another with jumpers. Routes had diversion boxes that were contaminated from leakage
that happened while moving the liquid or from fitting leakage. The job required developing
special made jumpers. These were pipe or flexible metal with 3 claws with a hook on the
nozzle that locked the nozzle heads in place. Tightening the claws pulled the clamping lock
together. Some liquids leaked down in the box, it was flushed out, we covered the ground
around the box with plastic.

Crane crews were 10 to 15 people assigned to put the jumpers in place. A crew had to

have a pipe fitter, two riggers (gave signals), a crane operator, a radiation monitoring fitter

and 3 or 4 operators, @ supervisor, a truck driver. It was an intricate specialized job,

Pometimes all of the crew received exposure due to leakage in the diversion and tank top
xeS.

When | worked in the tank farm, the tanks were single shell steel construction, about 40’
high and about 30-40’ across. It had cement poured all the way around it and was set into
the ground with ten to twelve feet of earth on top of it. One_of the tanks in the West area
leaked, they found this by drilling wells around the tank, then dropped monitoring
instruments into the shafts. Double shell tanks were built in the 70s. The first shell was
constructed, then a second shell was built with18” in between, monitoring instruments were
put in between the shelis. A Texas oil outfit came in to drill well shafts that went down then
horizontal under the tanks, air was used to move the instruments into and then back out of

The tank leakage was discovered. The media published this as news. About this time they
stopped making plutonium. The tanks contained all different types of chemicals.
Management started hiring again to solve the tank problem. The head of the operators
union was trying to get more money fo get operators to a higher level of education and
safety to do the work better. During this time Three Mile Island came into play.

We had procedures to do the work and they were revised a lot. Our work in 234-5 was done
hoods. Some of the metals could be very sharp, causing glove and skin punctures. Pee
jugs came around when this type of accident occurred. | got punctured when lath turnings
penetrated my skin. Another time | had to change filters. | used plastic bags that were
sealed and | had to wear masks. Some of the hot stuff got out into the plastic green house.
| inhaled it. | received a report that during my working time at Hanford | had 18% disposition
of life limit. My body will go to the Washington State University for research at the time of
my death to the United States Transuranium Registry.

US Testing and another company after them did the pee testing and fecal testing.
Sometimes a new pee can was set on the porch every day, sometimes every month

AF Page2of3


fener nrerennenreneniemerenme .-[XANO 36 ee ee fest) ororgostnw

pany

BASH 40° ava

NR AWEILSMONT Ts asa} j _ "guODaN alingoaKa
— : s40 “ae aaa AWOLSTH
A wna BOLAVRLAB BONS, Auton pene se ee : |. Smee

erecta seater marred

CELL

ihe 4 oor ork LPR QP Bere: Frvicy
brpprresepe cote pony cae ia woe Boe arbor.

Re TIE f

eaoa4 [7] anus

aC} 44a]

7P SES

1 SWAY Oo8 LIANSQIONY 40 Raval” aWingsns 4 esy7D

nagnon aouAva!

saanols "BINGWHDOG “Sonaus aay

” . oo:

~ WNUALNE
IBHNBOMNS 40 ‘Gavniisa yn 101 MO

$039493n0payu satdnySs Avesvoia foo : SANVANIWYANOQD 4O Buds
eee eee oe FANYNINYANGD 40 Bate & |
NOLLaHORBY NOLaWaVHN () woitoarn LB] sonsaont [J

: . woe S2NVANE LAWNIMYINOD 40 Bing
| #7 oh Lt Lhe Ad |
SY AHY Ot .. Beye

aWYN 8, ayAondwa

AWNUaLeD

ayaveous
‘On

ANZOPONI ANNSOUXD NOMiviovu IaNNOouliad

WNGNVEONaW

[ANo SP Avions0]



|
i

your radiation
maintain exposures within estoblished permissible limits.

BATTELLE [sy NORTHWEST

AXTTELLE SeEMOAL MESOTUTE ‘PACINE MORTANIST ASORATONES.
0 GOR 999, MONARO, WASHINGTON $9352 / TELEMONE SOD-42—111T

8209572

Decor

Records of external ono .xarnal exposure, including records of exposure thot you moy have received
elsewhere, have been moiniained throughout your Hanford employment. The radiation exposure
you have received ot Hanford & determined from measurements made by the personne! dosimetry
programs. These meosurements indicate for the A972 ure period

BECEHBER 23, 2979 through JUNE 27» 1971, the whole body penetrating
dose you received os a result of wark ot Hanford wos. 20 __rems, including. -29__roent-
gens. Your accumuloted occupational whole body exposure Is 03 follows;

Dose (rems)

gomma, xray 26
neutron po
tritkem 19.

Totat 26

The dose from any Intoke of traium Is included above. The whole body counter excmination program,
supplemented by bloassay date, indicotes you received no other deposition of rodioactive moteriols
which exceeded five percent of the opplicable lienit. . eet te ee

This letter wos prepared os the official, frog of your occupational exposure status of the time

of your tecminalion from ITTESS ‘ond tronsfor to
ARHCO, A duplicate copy of this letter will be poses

in your ARKGO exposure file. It Is especially im-
portant, therefore, that you contod the Personne} Dosimetry Services Section if thare appear to be
ony discreponcies. .

Of the reverse side of this letter -you wilf-find o- brief explanation of-the-current nationally secom-
monded limits and a simple method for comporing your cccupotional exposure with these limits. You
should contact your svpervisor If you have any questions regarding the information reported in this
letter, other information exposure ot Hanford, or the control system used to

' a Ah ted

Personnel Dosimetry |.
RADIATION PROTECTION DEPARTMENT



|
:
|

i
i
i
|
Hi
|

3
H
4

_ REXID:
Emergency Search For:

Address

Bam
Date

07/02/1979
07/02/1979
07/02/1979
08/02/1977
08/02/1977
08/02/1977
osvo2i977
08/20/1977
06/20/1977
06/20/1977
06/20/1977
04/03/1967
04/03/1967
04/03/1967
04/03/1967
02/18/1961

joc Sec Num: ..

i= 07
cD

WBD
wBD
WBD
WBD
WBD
wBD
WBD
WBD
WBD
wBD
WsD
WBD
WwBD
WBD
WBD
HND

!sotp
K 40
NA 24
ZN 65
CS137
K 40
NA 24
ZN 65
S137
K 40
NA 24
ZN 65
CS137
K 40
NA 24
ZN 65
PU 23

Radiological Exposure System
Internal Dosimetry Report

Quantity
9.3E+01
6.8E-01

7.5E+01
1.3E+02

6.1E+00
1.5E+01
4.4E+02

3.2E+01
1.9E+01
1.06E+02
2.5E-0t
6.5E+00

Sex)

INVIVO DISPLAY

Error

LC/MDA
3.5E+00
3.1E-01
7.5E-01
6.6E-01
3.5E+00
3.1E-01
7.5E-01
6.6E-01
3.5E+00
3.1E-01
7.5E-01

Page4

07/08/2006 07:52

Parameter Dates: 10/01/1900 10/01/2099

Count
Length

RG
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
SP

oT
cD

D4
DI
d1
D1
D1

Hq

Evat

This report summarizes all bioassay data available in the REX electronic database. It is possible that additional bioassay data
exist'ii microfilm records that have not béen incorporated info REX, although it normally can be assumed that omitted records
are inconsequential to dose calculations.

3,6


Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
‘Operated by Sattele for te WS. Department of Enenpy

August 27, 1997

To: Distribution
POTENTIAL UNRECORDED NEUTRON DOSE

DOE/RL has supported tasks under the Hanford External Dosimetry Project to desctibe historical
Hanford dosimetry practices and to evaluate the accuracy of the recorded dose for Hanford workers.
Several technical reports have been prepared (Wilson 1989; Wilson et al. 1990, Fix etal. 1994). =
Recorded dose from external radiation (i.e., beta particles, x-rays, gamuma rays, end neutrons) for
Henford workers, obtained from individually worn dosimeters, have becn used in national end
international epidemiologic studies of nuclear workers (Gilbert et al. 19932, 1993b, 1989; Cardis et al.
1995). A major objective of the epidemiologic studies is to provide 2 direct assessmeat of the

i i ionizing radiation at low doses and dose rates characteristic of

extrapolation from date on persons exposed at high doses and dose sates such as the Japanese atomic
bomb survivors. .

Dosimetry valuations conducted at Hanford (Wilson et al. 1990, Fix et al. 1994, 1997; Gilbert and Fix
1996) and by dosimetry subcommittzes (Fix et al. 1997; Fix 1994) formed to participate in
epidemiologic studies conducted by DOE and the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
have concluded that dose may not be comparable in time or between facilities for recorded dose from
low-energy photon or neutron radiation, and frora internal intake, The dosimetry subcommittees
recommended that the epidemiologic analyses ideally should be performed by exctuding the relatively
few workers with significant dose from radiation-sources other than fromm higher energy{> 100 keV)
photon (.e., x-rays and gamma rays} radiation, The dosimetry subcommittees have concluded that
recorded dose feom higher energy photon radiation has been recorded accurately. The vast majority of
recorded dose for Hanford workers is from higher energy photon radiation.

‘The focus of PNNL-11196 (Fix et al, 1997) was to specifically examine the issue of under-recorded
neutron dose for Hanford platonium workers prior to the use of the Hanford thermotuminescent
dosimetry system implemented January 1, 1972. This report concludes that there is under-recorded
neutron dose for plutonium workers during the petiod of 1950-71 when the Hanford Nuclear Track
Emulsion, Type A, (NTA) film was used. This conclusion is based on examination of several technical
studies and on examination of field studies compating thermoluminescent and film dosimeter results
performed during 1971-72. The magnitude of the under-recorded neutron dose is complex depending
upon the specifics of the work performed by each worker during each year, and throughout their

‘902 Battelle Goulevard x P.O. Box 999 » Richland, WA 99352

‘Tetephone (509) 376-2466 & Emall j_fix@pn!.gov = Fax (609) 373-0167

35


3,16

(301% Y3HKLO NO 3ANIANOD)

(68~ 2) 640-00RL-

a

POS = (ILIV AVIS oad GIONT IRGAT HS RIFE"
"O18 "Sheew ay
SLNSINAVEEL BaLay

Qusn LNaow =| 84ND MOHS) @3NU2DNOD “AGNI
any oNiovay 6
3HOa9G NOILIONDD NiNs | NOILVNINVLNOD30

AaAuAS vay Nine aAgauns awd
Lothh TEP OE | SEP) M- OOP [Ha BPE | TIF
‘ON DO ARAUNS wo None vay |" oe

auoogu NOLLWNINV.LNOOSO NINS
SO 2d “d ONY areVN :

2NADIONI sO awit



‘on “WlowAve

fa nn wien sa nerees cree

FT ew

BBtv
idwve | aid

AZ 5aWyS
a4vG

NOLLVNSISIG
wor

youl "ON PadNval GIaWwye
BAYS Bvite Bava

VIMANVS BYNBOIKR = F

cx)

Sg wvs BsANsOdns - LUOd

9 RISATWNY Sims sHOLONaNORn Ts

_ SLINGEH SISA:



Affidavit for Special Exposure Cohort Petition for Hanford

1 started working at Hanford January 1948, working at the N. Richland fire department for
two years. | worked continuously until retirement except for a couple of incidents. | was off
for a 3 week strike, off one week without pay on a criticality incident. This was in the
recovery facility in the 234-5 building. No one ! knew was allowed in East area for one
week, then gradually let some workers back in. People were on clean up around one of the
big buildings but not around 234-5 where the bomb was finished.

i worked as an operator. We ail worked very hard. We had 20 days of sick leave and five
day of personal business, most people were quite careful how they used them. Many never
used any of their days.

The plutonium material was received as a liquid. At 234-5 we started drying it in a fumace
making it into a powder. worked shoving powder into furnaces; get it dry, this was
where 1 took a lot of radiation.

There were different levels of ventilation protection in the building. First level did not have to
dress in whites, had leaded glass. Construction used a fot of lead to contain the radiation.
Sometimes concrete was poured six feet thick to contain a type of radiation. There were
different zones of protection and dress protection required. From the beginning we had
different types of monitoring equipment for the different types of radiation. They started with
big and clumsy instruments and got smaller and more efficient.

234-5 area was where the plutonium was cast for the first time. | and other operators had
gloved hands on the metal itself. We worked with gloves and sometimes masks. At first the
metal was poured in a shaped type of mold that was coated with a film. Operators used
sand paper to remove the film polishing the plutonium balls. We worked 6 days a week for
several months doing this. Later we started to use a lath on a chunk of metal to turn it down
to the size desired. ee

Material was worked in gloved hoods where we could not breathe the contamination; we
polished and did different steps of development in the ventilating hoods in a clean room.
234-5 had ventilating hoods in a long line, the material moved from one to the next.
Originally we were to rotate working at different stages of the development stations, but
found it more efficient to leave an operator to get good at one station.

The plutonium balls were the size of a baseball, haif balls at first development, then a whole
ball, at the end of the fine they were plated with chrome. Set them on 3 fingers, coat it with
chrome, then rotate it and coat it again to contain the plutonium. The work goal was to get
things done quickly, sometimes we alt cut comers. When the criticality happened that part
of the job was closed down, we did clean up in other buildings and grounds. This was
during the cold war era. We were good operators, they did not want to loose us so they
gave us other jobs to keep us on the payroll.

There was no housing available in the area at the beginning of the project. The government
built and rented houses in Richland. Houses were based on working in the area, if a worker

4@ Page 1 of 3


Diary page 8 of 28
Approximately 1948 had nervous stomach condition. X-Rays possible hidden ulcers.
Medical treatment cured this and no stomach problems to date. Treated by Dr.

1957 1958

Effects of weakness affected limbs. Fear of going to Dr., fear of loosing his job.

1959 quite in April — July of 1959, went to work at Lawrence Rad. Lab as maintenance
machinist was sick from Aug. 31, 1959 to Sept 22, 1959 and came back to Yakima
clinic and hospital.

Diary page 9 of 28
Dr. Norwood — Head of Radiation

Dr. Fucua — Area First Aid Dr. (G.E. Dr.)

Dr. Cooper - G.E. Physical Dr. (G.E. Dr.)

When I sent to see Dr. Norwood in late 1960 in his office — After I came back from

Calif. — He said “Don't talk to me about your iliness — go to a Dr. here in Richland and

tell him your problems”.

In 1963 had a complete physical by Dr. Manuel Cooper, understood he was a Dr. for

ara Company at Hanford. After 30 days he informed me by phone ! had rheumatoid
ritis.

In his office he read the X-rays and showed us pictures in his medical book and

(line did not copy)

(continued on Diary page 10 of 28)

Diary page 10 of 28
Asked me if f'd ever worked near radiation. | then told him | had worked for G.E. and

his whole attitude changed toward me and (1) did not see him again. So my wife
called 3 days later and he finally talked to her and said ssibly has
rheumatoid arthritis.

The following sentence was crossed out. Dr. Manual Cooper left Richland and | have
tried to get my records (1974) with no results.

Diary page 11 of 28

I recall several times during 2957 and 2958 wher me home from work on
day shift and had to go right to bed. | remember he was in a car pool and | recalt
someone else driving Vernon’s car home on the day he drove to work. | also
remember very clear days when he felt so weak that he was helped into our house.
During Aug. 31* to Sept. 22, 1959 — He was very weak and complained of his arms
and fegs

Crossed out sentence

4959 Sept. in California, we went to Tracy to a Dr. and Dr. wanted him to go to the

hospital. That's when we decided to go back to Washing for help, as new insurance

* wouldn’t (bottom of page did not

copy

~~ — ed Diary from Handwritten pages Page 3 of 4 FSA


Section

1.1
12
1.3

24
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7.
24
23.4
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.5.6
2.5.7
2.5.8

3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13

Table of Contents.
Title

Hem Number 6 Deficiency Section F Item 41
Missing Year and PNNL Records
; .  _-J Affidavit

J Affidavit
Dairy

Item Number 7 Section F Item F2
General Information

Monitoring Under Recorded Neutron Doses
Worker's Overexposure Incidents

——-.---.-8 Affidavit
_—! Affidavit
. Mffidavit
- s
wee ee eee, Affidavits
Missing Internal Dosemetry Records
Lost Records
Coercion
_ oe. swt Diary Coercion
' Affidavit
Lee ~. J Affidavit
Missing | records
5 : and Gabel Affidavits
FOIA Requests do not contain Worker's Compensation Claims Info
Bio Assay Records Missing
dissing BioAssay Reports
Affidavit

1 i Diary ‘Missing Records

Declaration of Lost, Destroyed or Falsified Records

, documents

Supporting Documentation
Medical Document, Nov. 7, 1962
PNNL Letter, July 16, 2001
Letter, _ August 27, 2997
_-.- PNNL Letter, February 28, 2004
_ _ PNNL Letter, May 7, 2002
, Internal Dosemetry Report, July 7, 2006

investigation of Personnel Radiation Monitor Result, May 23, 1962

PNNL Letter, July 11, 2006

Plutonium Urinary Excretion Data, August 28, 1963

Intake Incident, February 18, 1964

Record for Employee Exposure Record, May 23, 1963

_W.--~1.~ REX-ER67R, July 16, 2001
} REX-CRO1D00, July 16, 2001

Table of contents Sec 000057 Response to May 10, 2006.doc

Page 1 of 2


RADIATION OCCURRENCE

ee ae

magiacis
hare
1ecation

SOMPLETE DESCRIPTION

i, i ; |
fit
analy 13!
ifn!
41,1 A
ht i
[tt a

if Hi
bp i i

CAUSES

Vth Finteiw,

FVER GF OCCURRENCE
taney

te be
mphertzl,
ort

"|

Fane

RECOMMENDA TIONS AND ACTION

O-88-62

BEST AVAiLaoLe

DATE OF INVESTIGATION

3.10

ie



an Larliw 2397-5 Gerre ) Operator

AEE PHave gc Fe,
oe lee ae A

Opuriliore covntl therge FAA OAL

7 en ico
wd gf 2 eagle




432


67/11/2686 11:25 §a833762996 REGORDS PAGE 62/82

ctuly 11, 2006
Page 2

A thorough search was completed, locating no records for! x unt 1950. ¥s work
history indicates he was issued a Payroll Number 3 but did not start work until
sesa Records indicate as Not monitored for Radiation Exposure until

Due to a reevaluation of: _. __ s doses, there were dose corrections made for 1950, 1954, 1956, 1959,
1961, 1962, and 1963. All radiation dose adjustment sheets are attached.

A review of reference documents int ‘3 records indicates due to the poor quality of microfilm the
ting dose for years 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1955 could not be verified. We believe the dose in the
electronic database to be correct.

Whole body dose was corrected for 1957.
Whole body dose for 1954 and 1955 could not be verified due to the poor quality of prints.

A review of reference documents in 3 records does not support the dose totals for 1980 in the
electronic database. In conformance with Radiation Records policy, the electronic database records were
not reduced even though they appear to have been entered in error.

The x-ray dose recorded in 1959 shows 59 for each month, This is assumed to be a programming error,
and is really a print-out of the year. In 1959 it was Hanford practice to report Whole Body (penetrating)
Dose as the sum of the garrima dose plus the neutron dose and 35% of the x-ray dose. The value printed
for the calendar year gamma totat is actually a total of gamma dose plus 35% of the x-ray dose. The skin
dose (derma) was calculated as the sum of the whole body dose and the remaining 65% of the x-ray

dose. H does have 250mrem X-ray dose. ,
-is a registrant in the National Plutonium Registry as of 1969. He is alsoa
fegistrant in the United States Transuranium and Uranium Registries as of 1994,

a : .
We have enclosed a master note code listing. A note code defines a frequency change, where the dose
was received or how the dase was determined.

As described in a letter placed in F losimetry file in 1997 (copy included), recent studies have
indicated there is under-recorded neutron dose for plutonium workers during the periods of 1950-71 when
the Hanford Nuclear Track Emulsion, Type A, (NTA) film was used (NTA film was the only generally
available neutron dosimeter during that period), However, the vast majority of recorded dose for Hanford
workers is from higher energy photon radiation, and dosimetry evaluations conducted at Hanford have
concluded that recorded dose from high eneray photon radiation has been recorded accurately. If you
wish fo discuss further the contents of the 1997 letter, you may contact Steve Baker at (509) 376-6790.

If you wish to discuss further the contents of the letter, you may contact Steve Baker at (509) 376-6780.

Steven C. Baker, Manager
Hantord Radiation Records Program’ .
Radiation and Health Technolosy

<7

cc: Mary Sharp, PNNL/K1-59
Personal Exposure File


|
|

{

i
I

January 17, 2006

About 1:40 p.m. today. from Dept of Energy called. She
requested my mailing address. When | asked whether the information was ready
to mail, she replied that she had found his radiation exposure records and his
employment records.

| asked if the internal radiation records had been found, she replied that they
would be included in the radiation records.

She never answered if they were ready to mail. She is a most evasive woman.
February 1, 2006

1:04 pm. | left voice message for Explained that | had filed a
claim 12/6/05 and had not received any information from her. | asked that she
call me at

called me back. She claims she sent the information January 18",
certified mail. | told her | had not received it. She suggested | call our post

Office, | did. J. ._, . said he had not seen it. if it had been
mailed on the 18". it would still be at the post office, they hold certified mail for 15
days. | calledL _.. _’ back and left her a voice message explaining this and

asking her to call me back-

Called information and got other phone numbers for DOE Richland. | finally
reached , supervisor,
~~ 2 said they would Fed Ex it out today.

- February-6, 2006 ~

Called. . and told him | still had not received the package. He said he
would have to go to the correspondence office, and he would try to call me back
today. It turns out the information has not been sent yet. They scan everything;
they wait to see if the scan was readable before sending anything out. Their
scanner is down so they haven't sent anything. He was apologetic. He told them
to make copies and send the originals to me. If the scan wasn’t readable, they
could rescan the copies. He will call me back with the Fed X tracking number.
He never did.

Finally, | received the package by Fed X on February 8, 2006, tracking number

The original request was via e-mail. Then _ _ alled and left a voice
message that in the unfortunate event that Mr. ‘ vas dead, she needed a
death certificate. | sent a hard copy request with the death certificate on

A 1d


i

i
i
i

2.5.2

2.5.3

2.5.4

cabinets in. _ ?s office that contained Worker's Compensation
records of incidents and radiation claims that occurred from the beginning of
the Hanford Nuclear Project. ._ _. DOE overseer of Workers
Compensation wrote a directive for Westinghouse to retain all these claims
for 80 to 100 years. A copy of this directive was put in each folder in the
cabinets.

FOIA requests do not contain Worker's Compensation Claims Information

FOIA requests filed for records to support EEOICP claims for ‘

~ ° do not have any records of radiation incidents claims
testified fo in these aifidavits. FOIA requests indicate __.-.., ..-...-, the
Freedom of Information Act Officer, furnished dosemetry information from
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) only.

if there were no worker's claims filed for the listed members of the class this
strongly indicates a cover-up of overexposure incidents that occurred. If they
were filled, they have been lost, destroyed or falsified.

Bio Assay Records Missing
U.S. Testing was one of the company’s that did the fecal and urinalysis
testing from the sample cans that were left at front doors al! over Richland.

(see: idavit) * ~—-#H's mother, . worked
for them (ser ° idavit) (See 4.13) as did friend of § .  , and
h .--- Brown. Bio Assay records are missing for the
specimens that were collected. Per. affidavit, (See 4.9) the

fecal and urine specimens were collected, for bio assay “Sometimes a new
pee can was set on the porch every day, sometimes every month depending
{on) the.monitored level of contamination at the current job.” - .

_»--- affidavit (See 4.13) sample cans were placed on their front porch
regularly. REXrecords for Vare
incomplete. Records that are available show Urinalysis (UA) only which is
not accurate. {see Carrico affidavit)

Missing Bio Assay Reports (See 3.4)
records show a PNNL letter for zero dose recorded even though
the story of the incident was printed in the DuPont Newsletter. She was
scrubbed clothed and unclothed and her co-workers were picked up from
their homes that evening and taken back to work to be scrubbed. (see
-- “davits) (See 4.2 through 4.7)

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 7 of 9


2.4 Coercion
There were known incidents of coercion to change recorded exposure measurements

24.1. ~ + Coercion

The hand written diary by tells of coercion by supervisors to

falsify monitoring records or be sent nome without pay, or the operators

falsified monitoring records in order to work overtime. (Diary page 7 of 28) “In

i earlier 234-5 Bldg. years, operators kept their own radiation records. The

H RAD collected at end of each week — where there was overtime days the

Operators would change their records before turing them into RMU in order

to get an overtime day.” “Also at this time when Operators had exceeded their

! RAD limits and could not do their next days work they were advised they may
be sent home, without pay. This was Bidg. supervisor ultimatum (L. .

2.4.2 Herbert Dale Affidavit

The _ ... affidavit supports the diary records of oth
were operators in the 234-5 building and worked together or knew v of each
other's job stations.

2.4.3 | ~ Vavit

The : "affidavit also asserts dosemetry records were
manipulated for the purpose of censoring data.

2.5 Missing records
There are several types of missing records; worker's compensation files, dose
monitoring records, internal dose monitoring records, records are that “Best Available
Copy” or records that are unreadable. There are records that were falsified and we
assert that data was manipulated (See ‘ equests under the Freedom
of information Act do not provide all of the available information in one request. In
the -OIA information was requested two different times, with different
information provided each time. Requested FOIA documents are not given out in the
time specified, cooperation of the FOIA officer at Hanford can only be obtained
through her supervisor, see [ . _ affidavits on this subject.
(See 4.12)

2.5.1 vand «6s ' “*fidavits (See 4.10 and 4.11)

i
i
i
|
i
t

Attached are affidavits from . de weevout
worked as a clerk in the Westinghouse office of Worker's

Compensation; . _ ..-3 the Administrator of Westinghouse

Worker's Compensation. Their affidavits testify that there were four file

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 6 of 9


LE

TM

} ! ~~

«Fl owe ee pe he cna Or ME a A ES a a SRO oe ee en one oe - . ‘ ’ 7

: H 2 # SN ‘ 3
ae egrte~e

(suet
tS
++i Fi
i |!
4
td
ieee

;

fon!
tS
+4
(on
=

ich
we

*

ENE] el He ie el etl ei

rm
a
tt

i

# ary
Yeo
(al
t

+i

n

3

2

%
Fas)
so:

‘,

veh 7
BRhint et
SERUE

ov 34168 Wavid | aigwve | waennn
W/G | wa 34dKvS
ABRAOOTY % OO] WO OSSYE SLINSZY | wT ; ~

WOINOLA Td YOS SISATVNIUA — lare-z~ od -

x

4

a.

+]

ee

7 o

“4
el Seti tt

%
+

SHMVNIY

Zz
~
ao



FT
:
5
3
:

i

support bioassay results for 1953 through 1958. There are Invivo
results for March 1, 1962 only.

2.5.8.2 Battelle memorial institute exposure summary letter for 1966 or
1968 (copy difficult to read), (See 3.18) and Aug. 9, 1971, (See
3.19) Aug 9, 1977, (See 3.20) Aug. 8, 1978 (See 3.21) are present
in the Petty records. FOIA request does not include the summary
letters for all the other years’ _ y worked at Hanford. There -
are no supporting documents for the results in these letters. There
are no badge reports, etc. There are no copies of exposure
summery ietters in the documents for

ower een ee

2.5.8.3 The PNNL letter dated May 8, 2002 (See 3.22) states “According to
our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual while
employed or visiting Hanford.”, however the affidavit for
states sample cans were collected for him regulariy.
records contain 46 “Best Available Copy’ and seven
“unreadable” data sheets.

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 34, 2006 Page 9 of 9


Affidavit for Special Exposure Cohort Petition 000057

i submitted an e-FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for dosimetry records for radiation,
internal and external exposures for all years worked at Hanford for my father-in-law ,
on May 26, 2006 via DOE Hanford Site website. | had called ** FOIA Officer to check
on records request and she stated the records were mailed certified on 6/29/06. The records did not
arrive by 7/05/06.

My motherimiaw, alted on 7/05/06 to find out why the records weren't in
the mail. M_... . that there was a mixed up and that the records she had
previously said were mailed certified on 6/29/06 were not f srecords. Ms. ..-..._
explanation of the mix up was something like ‘the names were similiar. Ms .. -aid she couldn't
verifiy the email addres< 3 Original e-FOIA request. Note: The ¢-form did not have an
information section for email address. So instead of calling or mailing for more needed information
(the address and phone number was filled out) she must have threw the e-FOIA request away. So
wife requested the records again over the phone direct with | on 7/05/06.
a assured she would put a rush on this request and we should receive the records no later
than two weeks. ,

Happy to report that we did finally receive the records in the second week in July. However, what
happened to the original request made on May 26, 2006 on the DOE website? Hf it is a requirement

to verify email address, why isn't there a section on the request for this information? | copied the e-
FOIA request for my records and there is a date stamp on bottom 5/26/06. The delay of getting the
rerarcte within@Nimely manner was a hardship. _

—_—. 4 B/ 2806
Date
e
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of _ Poarvkoan | certify that | know or have

signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and volun
purpose mentioned in the instrument.

Signature of Notary Public : :
Title. Netecy De aolic appointment expires U-39-3.010

ile


Distribution.
August 27, 1997
Page 3

References

Cardis, B., E. $. Gilbert, L. Carpenter, G. Howe, I. Kato, B, K. Armstrong, V. Beral, G. Cowper, A.
Douglas, J. Fix, S. A, Fry, J. Kaldor, C. Lave, L. Salmon, P, G. Smith, G. L. Voetz and L. D.
Wiggs. 1995. “RYects of Low Dases and Low Dose Rates of External lonizing Radiation: Cancer
Mortality among Nuclear Industry Workers in Taree Countries.” Radiat, Res., 142, pp 117-132.

Fix, J.J., Salmon, L., Cowper, G., and Cardis, E. 1997. A Retrospective Evaluation of the Dosimetry
Employed in an Internationa! Combined Epidemiological Study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Fix, J1., RH. Wilson and W.V. Baumgartner. 1997. Retrospective Assessment of Personnel Neutron
Dosimetry for Workers at the Hanford Site, PNNL-11196, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA, .
Fix, J. J, E.S. Gilbert and W. V. Baumgartner. 1994. An Assessment of Bias and Uncertainty in
Recorded Dose from External Sources of Radiation for Workers at the Hanford Site. PNL-10066,
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. .

Fix, I. J, 1994. Report From CEDR Dosimetry Working Group to CEDR Project Management. PNL-
8631, Pacific Northwest Laboratosy, Richland, WA.

Gilbert, E.S., and J.J. Fix. 1996. Laboratory Measurement Error in External Dose Estimates and lis
Effects on Dose-Response Anatyses of Hanford Workér Mortality Data. PNNU-11289, Pacific
‘Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. .

Gilbert, E.S., D.L. Cragle, and L.D. Wiggs. 1993. Updated Anatyses of combined mortality data on
workers at the Hanford site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Rocky Flats Weapons Plant, Radiat,
Res, 136: 408-421,

Gilbert, E.S., E, Omohundro, J.A. Buchanan et al. 1993, Mortality of workers at the Hanford site:
1945-1986. Health Phys, 64, 577-590, : oe

Gilbert, E.S., S. A. Fry, L. D. Wiggs, G. L. Voelz, DL. Cragle and G.R. Petersen. 1989. Analyses
of Combined Mortality Data on Workers at the Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and
Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Radiat. Res., 120, pp 19-35.

Wilson, RH. J.J. Fix, W.V, Baumgartner and L.L. Nichols. 1990. Description and Evaluation of the
Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Program From 1944 Through 1989. PNL-7447, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Wilson, R.H. 1989. Historical Review of Personnel Dosimetry Development and its Use in Radiation
Protection Programs at Hanford. PNL-6125, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

37


Date: July 31, 2006

SEC00057

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH MS-C-47

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226

We are responding to your letter of May 10, 2006.

1. Item number 6 deficiency Section F item F1

This petition is to include all classes, all areas of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for the
years 1942 through 1990.

We intend to show either through documentation or statements provided by affidavit that
radiation overexposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of all classes
at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation were not monitored or consistently monitored through
personal monitoring or area monitoring.

1.1 Missing Years and PNNL Records

nformation shows PNNL letter dated March 20, 2003 admits no monitoring
during 1955 though he worked during that time period. Ten years of the twenty years
that were worked at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation do not have monitoring
tecords. The ten years without dose monitoring records of any type are 1942, 1943,
1946, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956. In 1945 and 1947 REX
shows exposurés but thére aré nd supporting documents. In 1944 monitoring
occurred only in November and December. For the years that are monitored the
REX program summarized by year when in fact monitoring records only indicate
specific months. (An example is in 1960 there were two samples taken, one in
February and one in September, the summary is for the entire year.) Also in the
PNNL letter, “According to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this
individual while employed or visiting Hanford.” This is not accurate!
(All documentation for “art of the original SEC 000057 Petition)

1.2 Affidavit
. fidavit and supporting documents testify to missing internal dosemetry
measurements for 1952 and 1954. Medical document dated Nov. 7. 1962 statas
i was ill “from time of criticality”. (See affidavit of
, (Sec. 3.1) PNNL exposures listed in letter of July 16, 2001 are all less.
than 5000 REM. (Sec. 4.1) There are no internal dose records per PNNL, “According

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 1 of 9


One August 8 1978
* Rock.--13 Hanford Operations

TM Individual Exposure Files |

froee .

‘Sebiecs Rockwell Hanford Operations Basic
Dosimeter Results WC 19

Rockwell Hanford Operations basic dosimeters with an ex-
change date of June 30, 1978, were for the most part worn
from July 1, 1977 to dune 30, 1978. (See Historical File
for latter dated December 12, 1977, WF Heine, RHO, to

ME, subject: Year-End Dosimeter Exchange ~
Contract E¥-77-C-06-1030. }

The results from these basic dosfmaters will be reported
as 1978 exposure and identified by a NC 19.

eNlote Code-19 - Rockwel! Hanford Operations Basic
Dosimeter results. Dosimeter was
worn from 07-01-77 to 06-30-78, end
the dose amount assigned to Calendar
Year 1978.

This action was’ discussed and agreed upon by-RHO. and DOE
ee resentatives. (See Historical File far letter dated
duly 19, 1978, » RHO, te Ject:
Rockwell Hanford uperattons Basic Dosimeter Resu3ts.)



|
j
{

|
|

support bioassay results for 1953 through 1958. There are invivo
Tesults for March 1, 1962.only.

2.5.8.2 Battelle memorial institute exposure summary letter for 1966 or
1968 (copy difficult to read), (See 3.18) and Aug. 9, 1971, (See
3.19) Aug 9, 1977, (See 3.20) Aug. 8, 1978 (See 3.21) are present
in the records. FOIA request does not include the summary
letters for all the otheryears |  __., worked at Hanford. There
are no supporting documents for the results in these letters. There
are no badge reports, etc. There are no copies of exposure
summery letters in the documents for ‘ . L or

2.5.8.3 The PNNL letter dated May 8, 2002 (See 3.22) states “According to
our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual while
emploved or visiting Hanford.”, however the affidavit for

. states sample cans were collected for him regularly.

me records contain 46 “Best Available Copy” and seven

“unreadable” data sheets.

papitptl ane

¥ Date

SEC Response fo Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 9 of 9


3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22

44
42
43
44
45
48
47
48A
42
49
4.10
414
4.12
4.43

{EX-408, May 7, 2002
, REX intemal Dosimetry Report, May 26, 2006
_ Uranium Urinalysis Results, Aug. 16, 1951
, Urinalysis for Plutonium, Feb. 24, 1952
_ Battelle Letter, May 12, 1966 or 1968
, Battelle Letter, Aug. 9, 1971
, Battelle Letter, Aug. 9, 1977
, Battelle Letter, Aug. 8, 1978
Le, , PNNL Letter, May 8, 2002

Affidavits, Summaries, Diary
j ffidavit
Authorization to Use __.. _ records
t v Affidavit
tu. .& Affidavit
Fo ..., Affidavit
t _. <u Affidavit
. Affidavit
. Typed Copy of Hand Written Dairy
__ 1 Hand Written Dairy.
- awe Affidavit
.— Affidavit
_1 Affidavit
Lye cee wow Affidavits
’ Affidavit

Table of contents Sec 000057 Response to May 10, 2006.doc

Page 2 of 2


Concentrated Waste — Recovery Operations
1 was lowered into a Recovery tank to clean the bottom. | was lowered in head first,
cleaned approximately 2 minutes and a sensation I'll never forget, they pulled me out
> and immediately closed up the tank and nothing more was said by Nuclear Engineer
Supervision. An experience | will never forget.
, 234-5 Radiation limits set up for hand exposure only although body was subject to this
io radiation limit - no shielding during years of operations of this building
Supervision — Some just with 3” grade and high school education. No fear of
production hazards due to lack of education.

Diary page 5 of 28

as an incident he can’t seem to get written down on paper but would like to
tell you about a 234-5 vault with high neutron count, which instrument dept. had
installed a neutron counter. This instrument could not take the high neutron readings
of this area near the Vault. And the instrument was removed. Later we coutd not get
any instrument maintenance men near this area. | worked in this vault several days a
week. It was storage for high radio active waste.

duld rather tell someone in his own words this one — hard to explain initials

| 2aned plutonium parts 6 to 7 hours a day 5 days and sometime 6 days a
' week on overtime. This was Part of the machining operation — in manufacturing
| weapons — continued on Diary page 6 of 28

Diary page 6 of 28
_ Incident~ 234-5 Waste Recovery

- newly hired young nuclear engineers for supervision in waste

recovery dept.
Conceming glass lined reactor tank early 1950's (This is incident | will remember as
long as | live)

In my mind E. | DuPont and G. E. put production far above safety for their employees.
In the 234-5 building their head supervisors and my supervisors put production ahead __
all else and contamination next and radiation last. They had complete control to work
an Operator. Continued on Diary page 7 of 28

Diary page 7 of 28

In earlier 234-5 Bldg. years, Operators kept their own radiation records. The RAD
Monitoring Unites (RMU) accepted these records. The Operators records were
collected at end of each week — when there was overtime days the Operators would
H change their records before turning them into RMU in order to get an overtime day. |
i am guilty of this, they should have fired me. To our ignorance of these radiation

| hazards we should have had the right supervision to contro! our radiation limits — And

| not take the word of the Operator himself — (witnesses available).

{ Also at this time when Operators had exceeded their RAD limits and could not do their
H next days work they were advised they may be sent home, without pay. This was

| Bldg. supervisor ultimatum

(line did not copy)
|
{
i

page2ots ¥ 8A


|
|

w

WOINOLNTd YOs SISATVNIUN

Es
+
C J+ JF
4? * wie ve - F +
ECAC + (Cis J+
+ is a
az Cs J+
Ci+ 3+ JF
+ (J+ C JF
Cit as eC 3+
aba a | on a I
bos a a hb he tT
i per F th ea 7 Zar “SRIRT TI
a eas Ty brn epgi’ [seals Tite
Prone
Byids wavs SD 1davs u3GRAN
SHUVAaY on | “wo tm) w/o a1dnVS
AUBAODIY % OO! NO O39S¥E S21NS3a H r ane
fandse - of a .

Perry

BAZ


Departmont of Encray

HANFORD SITE

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Freedom of Information Act
Electronic FOIA Request Form

To make an Electronic FOIA (E-FOIA) request please provide the follow
information:

FOIA Requests Name:*

FOIA Home Add =
FOIA Request Form .

* denotes required

Phone Number:*
Fax Number:
E-mail:

Description:* I want Dosimetry records for radiation, ¢
for internal and external exposures for i

Describe the information that .
you wie to in years worked at Hanford
‘specifically as possibic. —_— a coe -

Optional Information

Describe Yourself: An individual seeking information for persor
not for a commercial use.

Select a sultable description of .

Esegiirebeba lapel coated to Affiliated with a private corporation and am

determine status to assess information for use in the company’s busine
A representative of the news media and this
made part of news gathering and not for ac

use.
we Affiliated with an educational or noncomme:
Bix scientific institution, and this request is mac
ww scholarly or scientific purpose and not for cc

2scription


°
Fao 3000-438

~ Gewenar @ erectate

.
3
&
z
*
?
a
u
2
20

Rw
Bayi)

y cobvsle



“STRICTLY PREVATE
DATE: May 8, 2002
TO: woes es PNNE
FROM: 7 PNNL

SUBJECT: EEOICP Claim ¢
7 38: -

Per your request, I have attached the following items relating to

1) Contractor Work History,
2) Individual Dosimeter History

3) Hanford Occupational Lifetime Totals by Year, and
4) Bioassay Results and In Vivo Recard.

According to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual white employed at

Hanford.
Tf you need additional information, please give me a call on
Thanks/Sally

xe Personal Exposure File


WANFORD LABORATORIES

cemerat @ cvectaie

RICHLAND. WASAERGTON



OS OO ER

peactiw Wark on

| é: << : : as .

nn _ 7 4 Lp
fen Lred

. 4 Sf
ee IY
tarty / GTO pia hy as
f
cell
A
bE



2.5.5

2.5.6

2.5.7

we cee eegess~-¥ Affidavit (See 4.1)
The’ Le .2 information testifies that his group manager died after
teceiving acute radiation exposure bums in 1952. There is no incident report
for _. .@. His Extemal dosemetry records are missing for 1952
and 1954. (See 3.12) His medical history document dated Nov. 7, 1962,
signed by states illness since “critical incident”. Pera
medical record dated Feb. 24, 1956, he acknowledged he received
significant radiation exposure. There are no records of a criticality exposure
for f 2 in any of the FOIA requested documents received. The
PNNL letter extremity dose equivalent equais 30,070, the letter also states
“According to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual
while employed or visiting Hanford.” Document Sec. 3.2 shows bio assay
Tesuits with the exception of 1952. Incident records on this man are missing,
fost or destroyed.

_ Dairy Missing Records

Vern Haugen documents REX 000408 (See 3.14) individual Dosimeter
History shows neutron exposure for 1950 and 1951 and shows other
exposures. Neutron monitoring records are missing from REX requested
through FOIA. _ _ «tites about working in the 234-5 Vault (diary
page 5) where the neutron readings were so high the current instruments
could not be used and were removed. None of the RMU maintenance men
would enter it. The Nuclear Engineers and supervisor knew of this and ,
allowed workers (Operators) to continue working. (See PNNL Letter Jack Fix,
Sec. 3.3)

Declaration of Lost, Destroyed or Falsified Records.

From the affidavits fumished with this petition, we are declaring that: The
missing years were either not documented by the DOE contractor at the time
or if there were any records they were lost, destroyed or falsified. All the
PNNL letters state the “internal doses were not recorded” and the affidavits
stating “sample cans were left” indicate the records were lost, destroyed or
falsified.

2.5.8 The? — _ documents show the following:

2.5.8.1 REX Internal Dosimetry Report, dated May 26, 2006, (See 3.15)
shows a parameter search from 1900 to 2099. The results are
confusing and at best show REX is inaccurate. it has bio assay
results for 1948 through 1958 minus 1952, again there is no volume
on the samples and shows no results. The FOIA request
documents contained records for bio assay results for five samples
for year 1948 through 1951. There are no other documents to

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 8 of 9


A

a

AIE ;
i .
ee
Faun svus a. VeSt a
National Laboratory —
July 16, 2001 Operated by Battelle for the
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Extemal Affairs
U. S. Department of Energy a
Richland Operations Office
Richland, Washington 99352
Dear .
{SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory maintains occupational radiation exposure records
for all employees and visitors at Hanford. We have reviewed our records for radiation expo-
sures received by the following individual:

Social Security Number.

—______Dates_____
itor From. To
HANFORD EMPLOYEE 51

E in Units of R
Whole Body

Effective Skin Dose Extremity Eye Dose

Current calendar

~ year at Hanford N/A N/A _ NA N/A

Total accumulated
dose at Hanford 22,355 _. __24.110 30.070 000,

According to our records, ne internal doses were recorded for this individual while employed at
or visiting Hanford.

This report is furnished to you under the reporting requirements of the U.S. Department of
Energy.

2

LL L
Char Kison, Hanford Exposure Reporti
Radiation and Health Technology

co M. &. Sharp, PNNL/K4-59
Personal Exposure File

902 Battelle Boulevard « RO. Bos 999 * Richland, WA 99352 RECEIVEL
—_ Ef) | 7 2001 3.2

5
we


Cost Information: ¢

Maximum cost amout that you are willing to pay
“You will be informed if the estimated costs will exceed this fimit.)

Request for waiver of all costs:

Comments: These are records for my personal file.

Make FOIA Request

For questions or comments, please send a message to
Last Undated. 06/37

hittps://www4.hanford.gov/foia/ 5/26/2006
4.1%

|
|


State of Washington

AFFIDAVIT OF

ss.

we eee

County af Benton

i, ia . _
o£ lawful age- and duly sworn upon my oath, deposes and
states that to the best of my knowledge, that my mother,

1. Told me that she gst an over exposure to radiation
at work, and shé Was pregnant.
2. Tn 1995, Whe We took her to Seattle for another

epifiioh, grasping at anything to Savé her. The
docto®’s indicated her cancers were separate
primary typés, which is very unusual. (Breast and
Lung). In addition, ‘due to having Breast Cancer
so early in age, she had severe. osteoporosis.

3. When she returned from Seattle, the doctor from
Seattle called her. She began sobbing
uncontrollably. She said that he told her that
she very likely had a “thind primary” type of
cancer, being. Multiple Myeloma of the Bone. Her
primary care physician, Dr. was toid this.
Since she was in “quardedTM condition, and with
just a few more months to live, nothing further
was done to confirm the diagnosis: .

Since both my brother, T © wave had
cholesteatoma tumors, I have annual checkups with their doctor

to check” for this‘type of tumor. Also, -¥ don't know if it’s
related to Mam’s exposure, but J have been unable to have
children. :

paren ters 22_ nay or December, 2003.

ae

State of Washington.
ad Peet ee nant ene WOVAMMRL



December 6, 2005. it took 62 days, almost nine weeks to receive this FIOA
request which is supposed fo be delivered in 30 days.

was passively aggressive, she would not answer direct questions,
she was sugary sweet, but at the same time very uncooperative. It is my belief
that she lied when she said the package was sent January 18, 2006. | never
received that package.

STATE OF OREGON

County of Wasco. | certify that | know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and
voluntary act for the use and purpose mentioned in the instrument.

‘My app appointment oon A Se

OFFICIAL SEAL
LACY B METZENTINE
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO, 395410
MY COMMISSION cXPIRES JULY 27, 2008

t/3


‘ hitbng eee Covalberedl & Athy

then. s : »
CoroenBHieLd >
LO cess Gk edaat) Aeeeseey Gs

— G chean the torn. Lecco aw

Atak fiat, A thaned GyeprefimaUhey Dir,
arch a bentelion SE meer Jurget, They

AIS Redeatiin 4b wt J

tend ep ne) &
om oe 2 Phas

a yt ecth SF .
Jthol &duecteen> ~ 7 Jo Se o
Hh...t, due He tc€ GyEdercrteo: #78


i CERSTR Radiological Page 4

Exposure System
Hanford Occupational Lifetime Totals by Year 07/46/2001 13:01
| :
WHOLE BODY .
pay ID BID YEAR EXTERNAL INTERNAL“ SKIN EXTREMITY EXE PC
aa 1972 320 320 320 E
1972 1880 1950 1950 E
1970 1120 1750 1750 E
1969 2694 2760 2760 E
| 1968 1280 1280 1280 E
i 1967 1490 1490 1490 E
1966 2651 2610 2670 E
1965 2890 2890 2890 E
1964 1030 1060 1810 zB
. 1963 1030 1030 3740 E
H 1962 1240 1310 1310 E
t 1961 460 470 470 EB
x 1960 460 530 530 E 1
x 1959 340 340, 340 E
x 1958 1290 1330 1330 E -
x 1957 760 830 830 E 1
i x 1956 280 ~ 720 720 E .
3 1955 300 800 3300 E \
“x 1954 110 120 E
cod 1953 210 230 230 E -
: xXx 1952 60 60 EB aad
: KX 1951 30 180 180 B
a vA
_. Total Hanford 22358 24110 30070 .
ae
Total 22355 24110 30070 Aa
Intertrac: 3
. Outstanding Dosimeter:
a
#internal Dose is CEDE n

Only Hanford Occupational Doses are included on this Report

a.



depending the monitored level of contamination at the current job. Radiation monitoring
people were to check the level of exposure during each job. They had some women in
radiation monitoring and lab work. Women for the most part were clerks and secretaries.
There were no women operators until much later.

Every year workers were given a summery radiation monitoring information report for the
year. Mine was sometimes above the limit when working in 234-5. if we were getting too
high, we were shifted from a high exposure hood to another less exposure hood to work for .
awhile. Construction people were at 5000 Rad, operators were recommended 3000 Rad
maximum yearly exposure. At times we went over limits to get the job done. The exposure
rating was supposed to be limited to a certain level per year for a total amount of a lifetime.

We wore a pencil with an electrical charge and a badge that had film in it. These devices
were checked and changed monthly or sometimes daily depending on the job exposure.

| started work at the fire department, | was in the hose tower when | got hit in the side of the
head with a pulley. | got a swelling in the right ear area that did not go down. | went to the
company clinic, the Doctor told me if it didn’t go down in a month to come back and see him.
Went back he said he had told me to go to the clinic not come back here. During this month
| noticed nodules the size of com kemels starting to grow down my neck under the ear
swelling. When | went to the clinic | saw Dr. , he removed all the kernels. The
biopsy came back positive for Melanoma cancer. At that time they sent me to Seattle to the
Swedish Hospital for further surgery removed an extensive amount tissue from my ear area
to under my jaw.

In 2004 | was diagnosed with prostrate cancer. My PSA level was 8. The doctor did a
biopsy and treated me with radiation.

6-35-66

Date

STATE OF WASHINGTON

County of Benton. | certify that | know or have satisfactory evidence that
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the use and
purpose mentioned in the it

;
Signature of Notary Rublic >

ra _
Title, bl appdirimes! expires Gish

4. Page3of3


: . fe
EX-CRO1DO0 Radiological Exposure System - Paget. 9
intemal Dosimetry Report 07/16/2001 12:59

sEXID; 043020 Soc Sec Num:. ‘sex Parameter Dates 10/01/1900 10/01/2089

Principal 50 YrCom
Radionuclides DOS Equiv

D cD C Result Error Limit UN F

1.4E-08

K
Cc
8
8
8
1600 8 3.ATEOS
8
8
8
8
8

:
:
a

|
1

DN HDHHNHD MMOH @

GEREELEE22GE22222288228222922282223

DOMDNAH AD

| 3.7/3
|


State of Washington

County of Benton

i,

a
AEFIDAVIT OF ?

of lawful age and duly sworn

_upon her oath, deposes and states:

i.

2.

3.

T am the sister to

I remember my sister was driven home by her
company after being over exposed to
radiation while on the job.

I remember a newspaper article written about
her. incident, relating to her over exposure
of radiation received while working in a
lab, along with her picture and her
manager’s on the front page, which went into
detail discussing the over exposure of
radiation she received. The article aiso
indicated how her manager picked her while
still in her lab whites and carried and put
her in the shower.

parep tars Qli// pay oF Du, , 2003:

Bobbie C. Curr.
467 N. 61%

West Richland, WA 99353
(604) 7U7- 3705"

STATE OF WASHINGTON }

County of Benton }

ate of Washington. .
My commission expires lohLE
43


DM AB NOLLVNINVLNOD ANVH ¥o au

a, AUNSOUKA ONVH

Na HI NS.

4VWHVD | 9 Viaa | ‘SON aos

wens 48NOWLNAN . feed

spew YO JMS
BAMOORY AUNSOdA ONY ABAUNS ONINOLINOW NOILVid¥E Woud VLVO

td MHL ONIENG NOBNd BH Yod HW +
WABOAKE TV MOUS OL sctloORY wuNBOsXs ONY AZAUNS Hous BIGVL CHIME IOd BHA NI THs‘

INOLLSAND HI COldad HO BLYG DNINNG OFLOM

GNSv 5450 BNL

>. BUAOTANA BH HOINM NI BVauY INWIM “THY ABT)

miva

bn ce were ne aaypiezo ats, LiNSWLVENs IVASONN O14 Gato:

Ltn 3 BNS BUVLIW IANNOBU Sd 8.aHAOTANN BU,
| TE TEY FEV AT ROHS BUY Goitae 6 Ni

(OF NMONW MON Sithoal AUVLINSWa't
poeppour AypTeoss}20 Bupamp *FpT G-4Cz
Peggy net

° saeypouteoy Buyy aesuyy
UF FIT O40m Suoyouysop esnyoEg FuTpeed qsoy rzeqeUyZ0q WITY uodInEN

BR AM Py RN

an an ne LYE AAN! 9G OL L-1NSHY HOMINOH TANNOSIAE

“WAGNRS BH4 OL NYOd BIHL JO BaidOD
HOMOUHL § SNOILSENO BAVH Beye ‘CR, it BUNBO": He WHALEG OQ, D1. Ni
VN AOSV MHL WOd aaNiviat aVM MONEE a8 a } GREP ea AN

‘ON "TiowAyd |

ON LISEE YOLINOW NOILVIQVE TUNNOBH2e BML

meen on SM BMO ‘LOM (OVE YAS ANBOdEE! IWoUd

. CaWN) (wos

Me LINGSY YOLINOW NOLLvidwa
1) ISNNOSHAd AO NOILVOIISSANI

AMINO 38": SWwiolado|



AFFIDAVIT OF

State of Washington

County of Benton ss.

Ip -

7 of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, deposes
and states that to the best of my knowledge, that my

mother, .

1. Told me that she got radiation when she was
“pregnant {with my brother or me) and that the
Dr's didn't know if it had done any damage or
not.

2. Mom said that they took all her clothes off and
scrubbed her till she was raw and they took her
to the hospital for some tests.

3. She said she thinks “that‘s why I was born so
small and always had health problems as an
infant.” .

4. Mom said back then, it was always hush hush-~

5. I remember seeing an article in the paper when I

got older.

In addition, in 1987, I was diagnosed having 2 slowing
growing tumor called cholesteatoma in and by my left ear.
‘It required immediate surgery. Since, this type of tumor
returns, I was required to undergo. a second (residual)
surgery, and follow-up checkups in Seattle annually.

DATED THIS 18 axe oF Decemb, 2003.

) ss

Ope SLO flex

GorarY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington.

My commission expires Lleelhiey



ABst$-S 13 444 —

_ Pras tone ntadlot Ke tant aoe
Gag ee aan
“Lpslinant Apt had, éndlatlade @ POO

- ’ Kes 75
Crna , Ds. *
loetd me Bebe Ke Fgh mution G« 7
y Linen A Ceres Rerroveds aan call

AnD

¢

Alovage
~ a
a echee LEM dponecnt. 277
Se Na
Neb) Clann Glee) en?
eran een


|
j
j
i
|
|
i

2.3.2 | _, 0 nnidavit (Sec. 4.3 through 4.8)

experienced an overexposure incident while working in a lab.
The’ ‘three children bom after the overexposure incident suffered health
problems including cholesteatoma tumors resulting in disability. Her first
child bom prior to the overexposure incident has none of these health
problems. (See affidavits of .) Her PNNL letter
(Sec. 3.4) dated Feb. 20, 2001, shows zero doses. There are no intemal
dose records per PNNL, “According to our records, no intemal doses were
recorded for this individual while employed or visiting Hanford.”

2.3.3 Affidavit (See Original Petition)
The affidavits testify that as sent home from
work due to Overexposure on several separate occasions. These incidents
should be in the missing Worker's Compensation file cabinets. PNNL letter
dated Mar. 20, 2003, ENCL 9 in SEC Petition dated Mar. 8, 2006, “According
to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual while
employed or visiting Hanford.”

2.3.4 .. Diary (Sec. 4.8)
_g~+ uiary reports him being lowered by his ankles into a waste recovery
tank to clean the bottom. He experienced a, “sensation I'll never forget”.
(See diary page 2 of 5.) PNNL letter (Sec. 3.5) dated May 7, 2002 “According
to our records, no intemal doses were recorded for this individual while
employed or visiting Hanford.”

8 affidavit (Sec. 4.9) states he “backs the
.--~g~-- were both operators at 234-5. _ _ states they were
- . “sample tested for bio assay “Sonietimes a new pee can was set on the proch
| every day, sometimes every month depending (on) the monitored level of
| contamination at the current job.”

i 2.3.5 2. _ Affidavits (Sec. 4.10 and 4.11)

i According to (Sec. 4.10) and affidavits these overexposure
incidents should be in the Worker's Compensation files. There were four file
cabinets of Worker's Compensation claims kept in ., Worker's
Compensation Administrator's office. These old files contained radiation
overexposure claims from the time of the Hanford project startup through the
beginning of the Westinghouse contract and were directed by DOE to be

' kept for 80 to 100 years. (See 11 affidavits)

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 4 of 9


|

|
|
|
:
i

assBos77

An EXP-436 Report, Hanford Occupational Dose Record for Employee,
Prepared on 8735/77 . has been placed in thts folder to re-
Flect the external occupational radiation exposure status of the
employee as of the date of transfer from Atlantic Richfield Hanford
Company to Rockwell Hanford Company on July 2. 1977.

With the exception of tritium, which is included fn the
Report, Whole 8ody Counts, Chest Counts, and Bioassay data fndi-
cate the enployee received -no-daternal deposition of radioactive
material in éxcess of 5 percent of the applicable limit.

Further details concerning the division of responsibilities between
Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company and Rockwell Hanford Company,
which affect the Occupational Exposure Records, are available in
both of the companfes’ Exposure Records Historical Fite.

Very truly yours,

A Mec

K. R. Heid, Manager
Personnel Dosimetry



| Battelle Memorial Institute NoRnEWest

Poeces + momAnnmtcwncron satst = TEMOnE AREA CODER S4n1t12 tasoeatorr
ersan~ 7a04%
Dear ~~ -

Records of external and internal exposure, including’ records of exposure that
you may hove received elsewhere, have been mointained throughout your
Hanford employment. The radiciion exposure you ove received ot Honford ts
determined from mecsurements mode by the. ie) dosimetry

WeceIe see Ts stots ee for the 905" exposure riod
y through MAREW 28s 1966 whole ody
penetroting dove you sgcoived os 0 result of work gt Hontord was ae -
rems, 28 __ roenigens. Your sooumilated ‘occupational whole _
body exposure Neos follows: L .

Tota! *

With the exception of tritum, which Is induded obove, the whole body counter
examinaiion program, supplemented. by bloossay dato, Indicates you received
no deposition of radioadive materials which cxconded | five resnt of tha
opplicable timit, . .
This letter was irevered oe the offical tronscript ‘ co tional expo.”

the Nare_of. your. fermiagtion, oo ao. Sees lectric Company,
FEDERAL SUPPORT. SERVICES:



“no Herneeh quot ten AE lat ~ Tanti

4 44 s
vas PSF SEIS &

Bogs ae Fear GOOF



|
|

{.
- Paget a

O74672001 12-59

Parameter Dates 10/01/1900 0/01/2099

S0YrCom
DOS Equiv

gazgzzecges

gaezezaeacgacgecgacgcaedzaazay

11411955

07/07/1955
06/30/1955.
06/30/1955
O6IZ7H955
O607955
‘06/0711955
04/28/1955
4213011954
09/20/1954
06/21/1954
O1n4nss4
OS40/1953
02/02/1953

GELELLLLLEEGGEGGES220222 22222888833

MOHDHHONHOHTOan ed

Oo DODO HDHMHHHR

Ce

11E-08

44,3


AFFIDAVIT OF

State of Washington

ss.

county of Benton

I, _. son of,

of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, deposes and states that
to the best of my knowledge, that my mother

told me:

1. While working in a hot box is when she was exposed
and contaminated with radiation, and at the time,
she was pregnant.

2. When she became contaminated, she did not know it
until the time she went to leave,. and: the monitors
went off. .

3. She had to be scrubbed with and without her clothes
on. .

4. The authorities determined later, that others had
been exposed as well, and had to pick the
individuals up from their homes to get scrubbed.

In addition, in 2001, I was also diagnosed having a slowing growing
tumor called cholesteatoma in and by my right ear. It required
immediate surgery. Since, this type of tumor returns, I was
required to undergo a second (residual) and reconstruction surgery.
A follow-up scan identified another tumor on and in the other
ear(left) side. It was required to undergo another surgery, which
was much more extensive, and much more difficult. The tumor had
ruptured the cranium, and brain matter had to be removed, which
caused my to have brain damage. Because of these tumors, I not only
have brain damage, but have seizures, severe headaches and
convulsions. I am no longer able to work, and ami disabled. My
tumors were so advanced, that, I see on a frequent basis, my local
specialist, and specialist in Seattle. I will always require
further follow-up care, and possibly further surgeries.

DATED THIS /X’_ DAY OF Per. . 2003.

County of Benton

Caen Bibel

Hane PUBLIC in and fd? the

ate of Washington.
Mv commission expiresULLIOY 4s


Diary page 12 of 28

1959 April 9

incomplete physical. Reason for quitting — fear something was happening to me. |
can't explain the weird feeling of weakness.

Supervision — high school educated. Some of them were with education of only
eighth grade. No fear of production hazards due to lack of education.

Canned tumings around my desk on mezzanine approx 50 to 75 to 150 grams each,
this tasted about 4 month.

: upervisor, immediate Supr. |

Diary page 13 of 28
234-5 Radiation limits set up for hands although body was exposed to these limit. No
shielding these years.

i ‘Typed Diary from Handwritten pages page a ots 3A


see weew nee Radiological Exposure System Page 1

internat Dosimetry Report 05/26/2006 14:31
| 2 :
7 REXID: - Soc Sec Nun_ ‘Sex: . Parameter Dates: 10/01/1900 10/01/2099
Emergency Search For:
Address:

Evat Open P OR | A Begn End it A D R_ Principal 50 YrCom
1D Dae F FE 1 G_ Date Date Mée RR S__ Radionucli i
INTERTRAC DEPOSITION RECORDS
iD Depo Nuclid Activity (NCI) T-Rate (t/days)

INCIDENT/SKIN CONTAMINATION

Incident
i Num Type Date Building Area Dose Received
:
| BIOASSAY RESULTS
ooee Eval - D
isotope Date TR Vol C 1D CD C Result — Error Limit UN F
PU (0327/1958 «UU 0000 8
PU = 06071957 «UU 0000 8
1 PU (O4sI3/I956.:U co00 8
| PU (04/14/1955: 0000 8
1 PU «OS/I5/1954 «UU 0000 8
PU: 10/26/1958: oo00 8
| Ypu 10041951 o000 8
Yu osiei951 «U 0000 8
s PU 06/29/1950 «UU e000 8
» PU oeeais4g UU 0000-8
- PU 03/23/1948 u oooo 8
INVIVO DISPLAY
Exam BD Count pr HH Eval
Date cD Isotp Quantity Error LO/MDA Length RG CD F ID
03/01/1962 WBD CS137 4.8E+00 PR AI
03/01/1962 WBD K 40 1.29E+02 PR At
“++ 9301962 WBD NA2& vee PR OAL
03/01/1962 WBD ZN65 1E+00 PR AT

This report summarizes all bioassay data avaitable in the REX electronic database. It is possible that additional bioassay data
exist in microfilm records that have not been incorporated into REX, although it normally can be assumed that omitted records
are inconsequential to dose calculations.

3h


2 Item number 7 section F item F2

We have attached documents and statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
tadiation monitoring records for members of this class have been lost, falsified or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring source, source term or
process from the site of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

2.1

2.2

23

General Information

Hanford Radiation Records Program, informed us ina
telephone conversation that the dose monitoring records were put on microfiche film.
“The records that were on microfiche are very poor quality especially 1955, 1956 and
1957°. These were entered into REX. Out of the “OIA request there are 47
pages of records that are stamped “Best Available Copy” and many more are
unreadable. There are also pages of dose monitoring hand written records that have
no information entered in the calendar form. The:.. _ _. FOIA request had 117
pages stamped “Best Available Copy’, 32 additional pages were unreadable.

Monitoring Under Recorded Neutron Doses

In a letter (Sec. 3.3) signed by , Health Protection
Department, dated August 27, 1997, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories placed
int 3 record states,

“This report concludes that there is under-recorded neutron dose for
plutonium workers during the period of 1950-1971 when the Hanford Nuclear
Track Emulsion, Type A, (NTA) film was used.”

“It is. widely. recognized that unrecorded neutron dose occurred and
identification of these workers (to exclude them from dose — effect analysis)
was included in the IARC epidemiologic evaluations (Cardis 1995).”

Worker's Overexposure Incidents.

FOIA requests for the Hanford employees listed below are missing documentation of
over exposure incidents. According to affidavits, numerous over exposure incidents
occurred. The records are lost, destroyed or falsified.

2.3.1 Affidavit (Sec. 4.1)
“lil from time of criticality incident”. (see medical record dated
11/7/62) PNNL letter (Sec. 3.2) dated July 16,2006 states, “According to our
records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual while employed
or visiting Hanford.”

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 3 of 9


Te: Buployee Exposure Record Polder
Eaployee

{
i



|
|
i
i

Affidavit for Special Exposure Cohort Petition for Hanford

t worked for Rockwell Hanford/Westinghouse from 1983 until 1997, during which time I was clerk and then
became Administrator of the Workers Compensation program, | believe in 1987. While Administrator of the
program, the Deparment of Energy sent four cabinets full of old workers compensation claims, which
included radiation claims. ! was also given a DOE Order/Directive that indicated that | could retain all claims
for 80 to 100 years. This DOE Order/Directive was written and/or given to me by who was
the overseer of the Workers Compensation within the Department of Energy. | was transferred from the
Workers Compensation Program into the PSAP program sometime around 1995, at which time Tim Burdine
then became the Workers Compensation Administrator for Westinghouse Hanford.

STATE OF WASHINGTON “ips pes wes
4 : ; : Rr
County of Lee | certify that | know or have satisfactory evidence

that. : ned this instrument and acknowledged it to be her free and
voluntary act for the use and purpose mentioned in the instrument.

“ >. -
Signature of Notary Public CAM a eve Date “4-0 4" 2006

Title ae! Meg beéidluacleny appointment expires 3 - “7- 02 F

4./e


'
|
|
|

STRICTLY PRIVATE
ee

Operated by Battelle for the
Us Deparinan a earns

May 7, 2002

Ms. Sarah L_ Prein / A7-75

Office of Extemal Affairs

U. S. Department of Energy

Richland Operations Office

Richland, Washington 99352

Dear...

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER E.. __ ~
all employees and visitors at Hanford. We have reviewed our records for radiation exposures
received by the following individual: :

8 Social Security Number
——____Dates___
—From_ = =__To
HANFORD EMPLOYEE 7

HANFORD EMPLOYEE

———__——__Exposure in Units ofRem_
Whole Body :

Effective Skin Dose Extremity Eye Dose
Dose Equivalent Equivalent Dose Equivalent Equivalent

Current’calendar

~ yearat Hanford _ NIA NA NIA NIA
Total accumulated
dose at Hanford ——-8892___ _19.050 ___34350 __.000

According to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual while employed at or
visiting Hanford.

This report is furnished to you under the reporting requirements of the U.S. Department of Energy. Q
rg Lig *
Char Kison, Exposure Reporting Qy
Radiation and Health Technology x

cc M. E. Sharp, PNNL/IK1-59
Persona! Exposure File

902 Battelle Boulevard * RO. Box 999 * Richland, WA. 99352 RECEIVEL


1.3

1.4

to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this individual while employed or
visiting Hanford.”

]

ws ) information shows evidence of an overexposure incident in affidavits by
five of her immediate family members. The incident was reported in the DuPont
newsletter distributed at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation with a picture of her and
her supervisor. The three children bom after the overexposure incident have health
problems including cholesteatoma tumors resulting in disability. Her first child bom
prior to the overexposure incident has none of these health problems. (See affidavits
for Sec. 3.3) Her PNNL letter shows zero doses. PNNL letter dated Feb.
20, 2001, “According to our records, no internal doses were recorded for this
individual while employed or visiting Hanford.” (Authorization to use cords.
Sec. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7)

_ Diary
_ ‘Diary released by daughter « and son

_..-¢~-- Shows the following:
Diary page 5: “Worked in a 234-5 Vault, instrument could not take the high neutron
reading, was removed. Later we could not get any instrument maintenance men
near this area. | worked in this vault several days a week. It was storage for high
radioactive waste.” ”
Diary page 4: “234-5 radiation limits set up for hand exposure only although body
was subject to this radiation limit — no shielding during years of operations of this
building’.

in a letter (Sec. 3.3) signed by , Staff Scientist, Health Protection
Department, dated August 27, 1997, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories placed
in” record states,

“This report concludes that there is under-recorded neutron dose for
plutonium workers during the period of 1950-1971 when the Hanford Nuclear
Track Emulsion, Type A, (NTA) film was used.”

“\t is widely recognized that unrecorded neutron dose occurred and
identification of these workers (to exclude them from dose — effect analysis)
was included in the IARC epidemiologic evaluations (Cardis 1995).”

SEC 00057 Response to Letter of May 10, 2006, dated July 31, 2006 Page 2 of 9


AFFIDAVIT FOR SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT PETITION

As instructed by the government Officials, I submitted Freedom of
Information Act requests for the purpose of the recovering of!

-——-- —....---- » (my father) personnel, dosimetry, and medical records.
I filed the records on behalf of my stepmother? _ and
tnyself as we are classified as being survivor beneficiaries. Two exact
copies were filed according to the "Energy Employee Occupational
Tilness Program Act of 2000" (EEOICP) instructions. The EEOICP
camne into effect July 31, 2001. I released the compiled discovery
records to the EEOICP Subtitle B and Subtitle D aka E administrators
during that timeframe. Attached is a copy of my father’s dosimetry
records I received for review.

In 1952, my father’s peer group function manager died after receiving
acute radiation exposure that caused body burs that were detected by a
Chicago autpsy expert. The function manager died of his acute radiation
exposure. Subsequently, I believe that the missing 1952 and 1954
dosimetry records were manipulated for the purpose of censoring data
regarding anomaly radiation exposure. My father was denoted as being
“acutely ill" by 1962. His illness began after 1951. He affims anomaly

expousre incidents which he apporved with his signature. His dose
Page 1

#/


Blood” (wet a
we ‘ * z performed
Beduced to, -
Area of body affected. Original Reading
Reduced to
‘Type of Material, Mexfwum Reading
. Reduced to Elapsed. Tine ee
- Part of body alrected. Tourniquet applist_“"

2.2


SON Tlowawes

ne Se
we erence ay oy mess aT Kee t . TEHA

“ AAWAVE! CZIsMVS] NOlLvNOIEEG "on awa! OS IINVE
eras p awit Bava aor BsHve avid yAvo
MISNVSE BYNSOSES ~ BH StIWVS BUNSCaXB = LHOS

‘ : 2

SLINGRY SIS

BIGAVNY DIBLIWOLONEHOO Ts
e



87/11/2886 11:25 5893762986 Page 81/62

$e
Pacific Northwest
National Laberatory
July 11, 2006 pS" Daparinent a Eoeape

Dorothy C. Riehle
Office of Extemal Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy
Richiand, Operations Office
Richiand, WA 99352-1000

Dear

‘The Hanford Radiological Expasure Records have been searched for all radiological exposure material

relating to‘ This information has been copied and is attached. As in the past, we have
ro nap tized the documents but have indicated those needing attention with a “lag” on the right-hand
side of the page.

For comparison purposes, the DOE Dose Standard of 5,000 mram is the maximum allowable
occupational dose that a worker should receive in @ calendar year. The average whole body dose from
naturally occurring radiation (also known as background radiation) to ali United States citizens is 300
mrem per year, based on a publication fram the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements. The amount of radiation you receive naturally is influenced by where and how you live.
For example, a person receives approximately 5 mrem for each cress-continental, round-trip airplane trip

en.
This package contains two reports, #HW-36018 and #HW-36124 "THAT ARE NOT APPROVED FOR
PUBLIC RELEASE.” Both are dated March 1955. The reports are marked with a pink flag.

Hanford records show that : Incurred three separate intakes of plutonium, resulting in a projected
systemic uptake totaling 0.00548 microcuries of plutonium-alpha activity and 0.0457 microcuries of
_ plutonium-241. A summary of the intakes is shown below, based on a July 12, 1985 evaluation report.

Systemic Uptake (microcuries)
Pur239 Pur2at

Date Mode

03/21/1855 Wound {acid burn} 0.000083 0.00065

12/22/1959 Inhalation 0.0029 0.025

05/23/1963 Inhalation 9.0025 0.020
Cumulative Total 0.00548 0.0457

in addition, a slowly clearing lung burden of 0.021 microcuries of plutonium-alpha activity and 0.21
microcuries of plutonium-241 was associated with the 5/23/1963 inhalation.

The total uptake was categorized as approximately 19% of the maximum permissible body burden
{MPBB) for plutonium (based on piutonium-239 MPBB of 0.04 microcuries and the plutonium-247 MPBB
of 0.9 microcuries), The MPBBs used are contained in National Bureau of Standards Handbook No. 69
(1958) and Intemational Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 2 (1959) and address bone
as the critical organ. Because the worker terminated employment before the requirements for organ and
effective dose equivalent calculation were instituted, no estimates of committed dose equivalent resulting
from these uptakes were ever made.

902 Battelle Boulevard + RO. Box 999 * Richland, WA 99352

eS




@ /P40o &MTE: 24 Sack
—_ —

Lo

en ee ae 224 Clty
Sb fat 16 trench, Quere Lffposecre?
of He ALL for @ cnerdec .
ha ecw ivoire A even Af ~~
We C2bf 27 arwetes — ¢

fiat in Lhe terre boil bg Fann

Tie serene , . 7 :
fas conan hareing @ Deliticn Don azen

oor 2as Baad Oldg and ng

APY ES — 2aF¢ veel ~

aan . . ate e
te Noch ts done ae,

(949 230 “4 ogee EE
P20 echenrLs - ze >

/ (SoC 2 36 — he

ae



Affidavit for Special Exposure Cohort Petition for Hanford

i worked as disability clerk at Westinghouse, Hanford. | was told by the Worker's
Compensation Administrator, . _ ‘epartment of Energy files of workers
that had been involved in radiation etc. exposure were being kept in her office so that if later
on in life if any of these workers filed a claim, the record would be available.

| met the new Worker's Compensation Adminisirater, -. He informed me ail of
these records had been archived in Seattle, but the Worker's Compensation office had a list
of all of these people on the Worker's Compensation clerk's compuiter so that if they were

| needed the person’s record could be retrieved.

2523 /0lp

et 5 aN

i bed
Reece aaa, =

CA


|
|
|

equivalent was 30,070 mrem from 1951 to 1972 which does not include

STATE OF WASHINGTON
Country of Benton. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that .  . igned this instrument and

acknowledge it to be her free and voluntary act for the use or purposes

mentioned in the instrument.

Page 2
4d


i
|

|
|
i

MPAY.38.2086 11:G38r .

May 30, 2006

We authorize to release copics of my mother’s KROICP case to
only the special oxposure cohort petition. = -

NO. 149

Pei

4A


RADIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE Page |
Individual Dosimeter History 05/07/02
Hid: SSN: 7 Rex Id::
~ Pay
ec td NC Begin Dt | End Dt  OC_ Shali Deep Neut Ring Eye Per End Dt
xx 02/01/1959 12/31/1959 300280 0 ° 9 12/31/1959
xx 01/01/1958 12/31/1958 890 890 0 o @ 12/31/1958
XX 01/01/2957 12/31/1957 1190 1130 o 0 O 12/31/1957
xx 01/01/1956 12/31/1956 600 600 o 0 QO 12/31/1956
xx 01/01/1955 12/31/1955 a o Oo 3920 © 12/31/1955
i x 01/01/1955 12/31/1955 520 520 0 0 © 12/31/1955
xx 01/01/1954 12/31/1954 eG .) 9 5150 QO 12/31/1954
x 01/01/1954 12/31/1954 60 60 C) 0 0 12/31/1954
XX 01/01/1953 12/31/1953 ° 0 @ 3230 © 12/32/1953
| xX 01/01/1953 12/31/1953 1280 870 0) ° 0 12/31/1953
| xx 01/01/1952 12/31/1952 o oO o 820 Q 12/32/1952
xXx 01/01/1952 12/31/1952 560 490 ° oO © 12/31/1952
xx 01/01/1951 12/31/1952 0 oO oO 570 0 12/31/1951
XX 01/01/1951 12/31/1951 1120 970 430 C) © 12/31/2951
xx 01/01/1950 12/31/1950 0 0 o 1450 9 12/31/1950
xx 01/01/1950 12/31/1950 3680 $50 260 0 O 12/31/1950
aaa Bed 01/01/1949 12/31/1949 9 0 0 40 0 12/31/1949
XX 01/01/1949 12/31/1949 320 70 ° 0 0 12/32/1949
XxX 01/01/1948 12/31/1948 190 80 0 a O 12/31/1948
xX 01/01/1947 12/31/1947 100 30 Q 0 G 12/31/1947
XX 01/01/1946 12/31/1946 270 100 0 i) O 12/31/1946
es XX 01/01/1945 12/31/1945 Q ° i 120 QO 12/31/1945
xx 01/01/1945 12/31/1945 7430 «1470 ° 0 © 12/31/1945
XX 01/01/1944 12/31/1944 Q oO o oO O 12/31/1946

|
|

~
¥
aw
ve
FAY